I do not know Jeff personally, nor am I married, so I’m not here to judge. I just want to take what he and MacKenzie wrote at face value and think about what it means. I’m processing out loud.

Here’s their Tweet:

We want to make people aware of a development in our lives. As our family and close friends know, after a long period of loving exploration and trial separation, we have decided to divorce and continue our shared lives as friends. We feel incredibly lucky to have found each other and deeply grateful for every one of the years we have been married to each other. If we had known we would separate after 25 years, we would do it all again. We’ve had such a great life together as a married couple, and we also see wonderful futures ahead, as parents, friends, partners in ventures and projects, and as individuals pursuing ventures and adventures. Though the labels might be different, we remain a family, and we remain cherished friends.

Frankly, my heart winces at these well-crafted words. They project unreserved optimism without acknowledging pain. While a respect for privacy and not going into the reasons why is understandable, this level of positivity perplexes me.

After a long period of loving exploration and trial separation…

It sounds like Jeff conducted an experiment to see if he and MacKenzie would be happier apart. Although it may have been a long process with “great deliberation and consultation” (cf a recent Amazon shareholder letter on decision making), experimental separation combined with loving exploration seems to result in a foregone conclusion.

New relationships are front-loaded with excitement. If you think short-term, this will always feel better than going back to long-running unresolved marriage problems. How does this decision accord with ownership and long-term thinking?

Lucky, grateful, would do it again…

The gratitude expressed in the Tweet is fantastic, which makes the decision to divorce all the more jarring. Perhaps it means that their choice doesn’t erase any of the goodness of the past–they just want to be freed up for the future.

Using Amazon’s language of Customer Obsession, we could ask, “Who is the ‘customer’ of marriage?” Is it the partners, the children, society, God, or maybe all of the above? If marriage were a product (it’s certainly more than that), what would it look like to work backwards and iterate so that it fulfilled more of its purpose?

Labels have changed from married to divorced, but we’re still cherished friends…

What’s significant about dropping the marriage label? Jeff and MacKenzie are already parents, friends, partners, individuals and a family. What does it mean to be cherished friends, but no longer a married couple?

I’m guessing that it means you don’t have sex, no longer express intimacy or romantic affection towards one another, and drop all expectations of exclusivity and personal commitment. Which leads to the seemingly impregnable question: Why?

Not to belittle or oversimplify the very real struggles of marriage and the uniqueness of every situation, let’s imagine applying Amazon’s 5 Why’s exercise to this situation:

Why is marriage no longer a suitable label for our relationship?

Because we don’t love each other.

Why don’t we love each other?

Because we don’t spend time together.

Why don’t we spend time together?

Because we want different things.

Why do we want different things?

Because we already have all we want materially and the things money can’t buy require sacrifices we don’t want to make for each other.

What now?

The Bible teaches Christians to pray for those in power. Money is power and the Bezos are the richest couple in the world.

So last Thursday, I gathered with 30 other people in South Lake Union (Amazon HQ’s neighborhood) to give thanks and pray for the Bezos, their family, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, the whole Seattle tech scene, the relentless tech culture and the Christians who work in it. We also prayed for each other and for the impact of the tech industry on our communities.

If you’re a Christian reading this, may I invite you to pray for Jeff, MacKenzie and their family?

And if you want to pray with others, you can join our next Seattle meetup or Contact Me if you’d like materials to help you start a Pray 4 Tech gathering in your community.

Leadership often begins with vision, a description of where you’re leading people. It takes courage to cast vision because: what if you’re wrong?

Irresponsible leaders couldn’t care less. They’ll say whatever it takes to get what they want in the moment.

But I’m guessing that many people are overly cautious about sharing what they see.

So here’s two mistakes I’ve made regarding vision to encourage you to voice your vision to others (if you’re like me).

Mistake #1. Worrying about naysayers instead of finding and investing in soulmates.

Whether it’s due to insecurity or upbringing, I’ve always been driven to convince people about my ideas.

I think through every possible objection and summon rigorous counterarguments before anyone brings them up. I want to be right.

Unfortunately, such intellectual effort is not only exhausting, but often unnecessary (and paralyzing). I end up communicating with people under the assumption that they will reject me. I assume they are looking for a reason to say, “No” to my ideas.

The fear of rejection makes it so tiring it’s easier to not even try.

I don’t publish the blogpost. I don’t send the message. I don’t deliver the presentation.

That’s not leadership.

Correction: Focus on finding and investing in “soulmates” instead of worrying about “naysayers”.

“Soulmates” want to understand and strengthen your vision. They want to be persuaded and even their most critical feedback is for good.

“Naysayers” for whatever reason want to tear your vision apart. Don’t worry about them. Circumstances outside your control have to change for them to be open to your vision.

So make your pitch and discern if the person you’re talking to is a “soulmate”, “naysayer” or something else. Invest in your “soulmates”.

Mistake #2. Worrying that the vision is too big to achieve instead of inviting others to think big with me.

My school system (Seattle Public Schools / University of Washington in the 1990s-2000s) primarily rewarded students for being self-reliant. You do your homework, take your tests and get graded individually.

Unfortunately big visions are typically group projects. You can never personally get all the skills, resources and time required to make a big vision come true.

Since self-improvement and individual achievement have long been my main source of positive reinforcement, it’s difficult to ask for help and invite people to join me. Perhaps I’m scared of the risk & responsibility.

So I naturally think small. I limit my vision to what I can personally achieve. And guess what: that’s really sad because the big vision is what can really enrich people’s lives.

What does the full vision require? What is the best contribution you can personally make? What do you need others to do? What can you achieve immediately? What can you achieve in a decade?

By not limiting your vision to your personal capacity, you lead others into previously unimaginable possibilities.

PS, I suppose it’s time for me to take my own advice :). I’m still discerning the big vision for TheoTech, but invite you to join our Facebook group if you want to be part of the journey. You can also follow our story on YouTube / Podcast sites.

Awkward silence lingers until the small group leader tentatively asks another question. Everyone stares at their toes. Someone offers a nervous answer. The leader tries to parley it into a discussion, but no one really opens up.

OR

One person babbles endlessly about their ideas or problems while everyone else smiles and nods politely. They want to move on, but the master conversationalist is too oblivious to make space for others.

OR

Smiles and hugs aside, everyone is putting up a front and trying to look good in front of the group. Conversations are surface level and the discussion is perfunctory (e.g. filling in the blanks in a handout with the obvious right answers).

OR

Everyone is nice to each other and loves talking about football, work, relationships, etc. But when it comes time to talk about God or the Bible, the mood shifts from a lighthearted gathering of friends to a serious high-pressure environment where everyone must bare their soul to experience enlightenment and transformation.

I cherry-picked these scenarios, but there’s many ways you can get that uncomfortable vibe when a small group discussion isn’t thriving.

In the back of your mind, you may be asking:

“Why am I here? This is a waste of time…”

Here’s one idea for how to change that:

Focus on discovering and unleashing each other’s gifts.

We’re individually supposed to fan our gifts into flame (2 Timothy 1:6). So why not help each other do this in our small groups?

We’re supposed to spur each other on to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24). So why don’t we make that the main goal of our small groups?

If you’ve felt bored, disappointed or maybe even guilty over letting your gifts languish and not using them fully for God’s Kingdom, don’t you think other people might feel the same way too?

What would it look like if the goal of your small group were to activate each other’s gifts and release them into the world?

I think it’d look like Paul’s description of how the Body grows up in Ephesians 4. It might even look like the seeds of a second Reformation.

So, what God-given gifts will you fan into flame?

And when you’re in a small group, how will you help fan into flame the gifts of others?

PS, I started this post over 5 years ago, so I’m not singling out any particular church. As part of a New Year commitment to write more regularly, I decided to polish the draft and ship it in 2019 🙂